Chembeti wrote:
In interviews with jurors inquiring how they arrived at their verdicts, researchers found that 40 percent of the references jurors made were to factors that had not been included in courtroom testimony. To improve the jury system, the researchers suggested that judges give instructions to the jury at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end. They argued that this would permit jurors to concentrate on the most relevant evidence rather than filling in gaps with their own assumptions, which have little to do with the legality of a case.
The answer to which of the following questions is LEAST directly relevant to evaluating the researchers’ suggestion above?
A. Is it possible for a judge to instruct a jury at the end of a trial in such a way that jurors will disregard any irrelevant factors they had been using to weigh the evidence?
B. Will a jury that hears a judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial be able to weigh the evidence accordingly once that evidence has actually been presented?
C. Will having judges give instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at the end significantly alter the customary procedures employed by the judicial system?
D. Were the methods and or interview processes used by the researchers biased in any way?
E. If jurors hear the judge’s instructions at the beginning of a trial, what percentage of the factors that influence their decisions will be matters that were not presented in the evidence?
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
C
In order to evaluate the suggestion here, we must identify the problem that the plan is intended to solve, and how it will do so. That's the standard approach to Critical Reasoning arguments that put forth plans and proposals.
After conducting interviews, researchers are alarmed at the extent to which jurors appear to base verdicts on factors outside testimony. Researchers suggest that juries should get instructions at the beginning of a trial rather than at its end, so they can concentrate on relevant evidence. We want the question that is least helpful in evaluating this plan. Questions that are helpful in evaluating the plan will probably test the researchers' understanding of the problem, or test the efficacy of their proposed solution. A good way to test the choices is to check whether "yes" and "no" answers to the question affect the plan's chances of success differently (where, of course, the question allows a "yes" or "no" answer). (C) fails the test. We're interested in whether the plan will be effective, or whether it's necessary, or whether there's a better approach. (C) asks only if implementing the suggestion will alter customary procedures. No matter what the answer to that question is, the researchers' suggestion is unaffected.
If the answer to (A) is yes, then the researchers' plan isn't even necessary-the present system will work if given a little refining. If the answer to (B) is "yes," then the researchers' suggestion is strengthened. If the answer is "no," then the suggestion is worthless. (D) strikes at the reason for developing the plan. If the answer is "yes," that jurors do report factors that weren't really influential to their decision making, then the plan may not be necessary. (E) asks if the plan will work; if jurors still consider many factors that have nothing to do with the evidence even when judges give their instructions ahead of time, then the plan will fail. If, on the other hand, jurors consider far fewer irrelevant factors, then the plan looks good.
_________________
close
26 Feb 2012, 09:48
47%
(02:25)
wrong 
)
